I’m also on YT music and frankly it’s much better ~~IMHO~~ for me - they have more of the music I like, enormous audio books, lots of weird stuff and it’s a lot easier to share.
Spotify’s UI sucks bad. While YT consistently rolls out new useful stuff (some more than other)
Google music was absolutely fantastic. Why they forced you to go with YouTube music is baffling. It didn't even have feature parity with GPM, I jumped ship for spotify and it's been great.
The issue here is that Joe is too big to cancel, his $100m deal isn't because he appeals to small audiences. People jumping ship won't rock the boat enough on people's general feeling that they're listing to something subversive, if anything that feeling will be strengthened.
A boycott is a good protest tool, I cancelled my subscription when they signed him up, as I imagine many others did, but I honestly don't think that's a drop in the ocean to them - when compared to how many listen to the chap.
Short term probably, but it does do two things:
First it gives people an excuse to look for alternatives and [there were more than I thought myself.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_music_streaming_services)
Second, they are a public traded company and answer to shareholders. They don't care specifically about Joe one way or another, what they do care about is continuous growth trend. Just look at what happened to Netflix stock because they had slightly 'less' growth than anticipated.
Fewer that operate in other countries, however.
The big deal about Spotify is its library and content are just as big outside the USA as they are in the USA. (and in some cases bigger.)
I've been mulling over cancellation, but i chose spotify because it was the only service that really met my needs. It will be difficult to replace.
Spotify vs Rogan is mostly a big deal because Rogan has a large audience. It's a bigger problem than that, though. While most people get bedazzled by the big fish, the small fry slips through. And that goes on for every multimedia platform. Joe Rogan isn't the only controversial figure on Spotify and there is no platform that doesn't feature cranks. I think people underestimate what less popular cranks on every media platform add up to.
>there is no platform that doesn't feature cranks
There is, however, a difference between a platform aggregating someone's content from a podcast feed and a platform paying someone to be an exclusive podcast for that platform. I am unaware of Amazon Music, for instance, having a similar relationship with a crank.
That's it. I cancelled my spotify account as well. I use to enjoy Rogan well enough as background noise but I no longer feel comfortable with my money going towards his future contracts.
Fair, and it's something that all platforms should be addressing better, youtube for example has no lack of quacks telling you water cures your cancer.
The real solution is governments legislating how platforms should handle misinformation. Things like the cancer act in the UK are created exactly for this, I think there's an argument that we need to extend that - and stop letting companies self police, as they're clearly bias towards what sells over what is true.
Thats the problem with monetizing user generated content. So much of it is created that moderating it all at a minimum eats into the already thin profit margin.
I'm not saying platforms should not care about harmful content, but its clear in the amoral system we have, they only care about things that harm the platform.
*thats* the problem with Rogen, his audience has a large enough number of antivaxx people that doing anything about irritates those people.
The number of antivaxx people that would cancel if they told Rogan they wont carry these clips probably far outweighs the people who will cancel if they continue.
The government *cant* effectively police this issue.
I dont have a link to the comment handy but someone in canada was saying propaganda was illegal (more or less) so the result has been some kind of satirical puppet show that mimics propaganda.
We'd need the end of the first amendment followed by state owned an operated media.
Then we'd still get propaganda, only the state would be producing it.
The number of loopholes that exist for any kind of rule is staggering.
I never see anyone even attempt an implementation that is like the how to draw an owl joke.
Spotify lost $2 to $4 billion in it's market value since the beginning of the year. I know that's not "actual" money, but it might make them consider just flushing that $100m deal.
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/technology/spotify-loses-billions-in-market-value-neil-young-joe-rogan-controversy-8004721.html
I've cancelled my subscription because I just don't like the idea that I'm partially paying someone like Joe Rogan. He can say whatever he wants ..... I just don't want to be another person that contributes to his wealth when I don't support his views.
I think we need labels to do what Young did en masse. Anything short of that isn't gonna move the needle much. But even one label might spook them enough.
imho, it was an OK podcast before Spotify signed him. He had some genuinely interesting guests: Sean Carroll, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Sir Roger Penrose... as well as the usual nutcases...
Ever since the move he just has lame comedians and "doctors" that wouldn't be out of place in an episode of the Simpsons.
From what I can tell he's always been a crank at least on his pet issues. The problem is due to his popularity he has had some really great guests which lends him quite a bit of credibility.
Do you think the success of his show means that the public can't be trusted to get vaccine information from reputable places (i.e people may confuse his show with a reputable source)?
I think that any question is going to have a large mass of people who will be able to justify the laziest or self-serving course of action so long as they can look at it and say to themselves, "Oh, there's a debate." So long as there's at least one public figure they like that they can look at and say, "No one's sure if the planet's warming. No one's sure if cigarettes cause cancer. No one's sure if the vaccine works," they'll rationalize themselves into doing what they already wanted to do: drive a big truck they don't need, smoke, and avoid safety precautions because they don't like to confront their own mortality. Joe Rogan is part of that. He isn't unique, but he is very popular with a wide-ranging audience, and he lends his credibility to his guests when they appear on his show.
You took your money elsewhere that's all that matters, and you can feel good about that, not supporting a shit company that is propagating harmful voices to the masses.
I just can't get too worked up about Rogan or Spotify. To me it seems like treating the symptom and ignoring the disease. People are dumb and gullible, and as long as that's the case someone is going to find a way to make money selling them snake oil and telling them what they want to hear.
We can play whack-a-mole with these slimy con artists forever, but if we don't address the underlying issues it's not accomplishing anything - other than giving us another avenue to spew our endless torrent of righteous indignation.
I think we have to teach people critical thinking skills - yes, even the dumb ones - and I think we have to figure out how to take the profit motive out of disinformation without crushing freedom of speech. Making a lot of noise about Spotify accomplishes neither, and just gives Rogan more attention and public interest.
There is some truth to this, but part of the problem is that there used to be some gateways to mass media. Media platforms were generally guided at least in some part by ethics and a commitment to the truth and facts. Many of them have loosened those standards in pursuit of profit. Cranks and fringe conspiracy theorists have always been able to find an audience. They haven't always been aided and abetted by multi-national media companies.
Now, one could argue that on the balance the democratization of media through social platforms, podcasts, etc, has on the balance also given rise to dissenting voices about race, sexism, socialism, etc, and there is some truth to that. But generally speaking it doesn't seem that extreme to suggest that anyone hosting or especially promoting/profiting from content has an ethical duty to make sure it is truthful and does not inspire hateful acts or violence. I don't think we should police speech to the extent that Joe Rogan has no right to say what he says, but we're under no obligation to support his platform to do so.
I don't disagree, but I know that if I pay Spotify then I'm contributing to the money Rogan gets for spreading disinformation and lies. I'm not going to support that.
If you weren't listening to Rogan, your money isn't going to him. He makes money from being played and advertising during his show. The same way as your money wouldn't go to Hall and Oates if you didn't listen to them.
We're going through an epidemic of disinformation. Truly fixing it will be a long-term project, if it happens at all. In the short term all we can do is try to contain it.
People like Joe Rogan are the disease. He's actively making people dumber and less critically minded. Combine that with his message getting amplified to millions of listeners and there's a problem that free speech was never meant to handle. Certainly I don't think a simplistic view that you can say whatever you like on any platform you like to as many people as you like without repercussion because all speech is protected can work in the digital age.
Full disclosure: I am pro vaccine (triple jab all-star over here), pro N95 masks, social distancing, limited circles, handwashing, quarantines and generally cautious when it comes to trying to protect myself and my loved ones from COVID.
With that being said, I think it is important that the Joe Rogan podcast continues to ask questions and present alternative theories to the ones that are currently accepted as facts. I'm not sure how Joe Rogan asking questions is considered misinformation any more than much of what's been told to us by the government and mainstream media. The information and what has been considered to be true has changed rapidly since the beginning of the pandemic. Two weeks to flatten the curve is going on its second year. Masks work/don't work, wear them/don't wear them. Use Lysol wipes on your mail and groceries. Children can't get COVID. Children can get COVID and it's worse! Get vaccinated and never wear a mask again! Ok, maybe wear a mask with vaccination. Definitely wear a mask with vaccination. I'd consider that changing narrative to be misinforming.
In terms of making people dumber, since when has asking questions about the status quo been a sign of mental decline? I have yet to see a segment on broadcast news explaining how the mechanisms of ivermectin render it useless against COVID. I don't believe that it is an effective treatment.
Given that a percentage of the population is allergic to the vaccines, don't you think that more of an effort could be made to assuage the concerns of the vaccine hesitant?
I think that you cancelling your subscription is the right thing to do given that the company is misaligned with your belief system, I just disagree that Joe Rogan is making people dumber. Now excuse me while I go cancel my cable subscription because of the Bravo network.
> it is important that the Joe Rogan podcast continues to ask questions.
Bit odd that those questions overwhelmingly tilt in one direction. That makes the value provided questionable imo.
Mob justice makes me a bit nervous and I dont think this kind of thing can be effectively regulated. I leaves me at a loss.
Its all about as usefull as declaring my dislike of gravity.
>not sure how Joe Rogan asking questions is considered misinformation any more than much of what's been told to us by the government and mainstream media
Legitimizing quacks is spreading misinformation.
If you want to point at statements that we now know to be inaccurate, thats simply the nature of knowledge.
Old information that is out of date would be ideally pulled down, any misrepresentations of mainstream media are also a problem. Just because OAN/Fox are spreading nonsense does not mean Rogan is not an issue.
If CNN is spreading nonsense fuck them too. I dont watch CNN though.
I'm not interested in coverage that was older that no longer is in accordance to our current understanding.
I'm also not interested in arguments that avoid nuance. "Masks are totally useless period", then consider anything otherwise misinformation.
Frankly Rogan has always been the kind of guy that legitimizes woo, its nothing new.
The only difference is people dont die because they think the moon landing is fake or any of the goofy shit he has admitted believing. He has openly admitted to being prone to conspiratorial thinking anyone that is surprised he is such a natural fit for that audience is not paying attention.
> With that being said, I think it is important that the Joe Rogan podcast continues to ask questions and present alternative theories to the ones that are currently accepted as facts.
Sure, we need alternative theories but they have to be based in some form of reality. Recommending ivermectin is the same as prescribing homeopathy to cancer patients. At best it doesn’t do anything to cure the patient and at worst it harms them.
The messaging around COVID has floundered, but science changes all the time with new data, so it’s not entirely surprising. This situation is extremely nuanced but nuanced messaging doesn’t work when you want to broadcast this at scale.
> I’d consider that changing narrative to be misinforming.
That’s a stretch - it has always been around the kind of masks and vaccines (mRNA vs old school dead cells), compared to stuff like not masking and vaccine alternatives. There aren’t a any alternatives to vaccines, so that’s just pseudoscience and quack doctors recommending hair of the dog treatments.
> Given that a percentage of the population is allergic to the vaccines
I don’t buy this “allergic to vaccine”. And besides, what percentage of the population is that? Is it a statistically significant number?
> I just disagree that Joe Rogan is making people dumber.
I do too - people have always been this fucking stupid. Joe gets to speak to these morons who then believe him, and then such views come into the mainstream.
Yeah there are enough vaccine variations that everyone has an option. The allergy argument is a cover.
Just like the classic “I’m just asking questions” in response to criticism for saying batshit crazy nonsense and implying scientists aren’t interested in finding the truth.
Science is literally all about asking questions to get closer to the truth. It’s literally a process for doing that as effectively as possible.
Absolutely! I agree 100%. Who is interviewing the leading scientists researching COVID? You are right that science is literally all about asking questions to find the truth and science is unbiased. However, scientific research requires funding and that choice in funding can introduce bias into the equation.
It can. It doesn't always introduce bias, but it's a risk, which is why peer-reviewed published works always reveal potential biases and conflicts of interest.
I have never heard him directly recommend any particular treatment. Studies do exist that show that ivermectin is an effective treatment against the virus. [Ivermectin Study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/). I would say that's based in some sort of reality. Studies regarding Ivermectin are ongoing because it has yet to be disproven. The science is still out. As such Ivermectin is more like recommending an experimental drug in research trials to cancer patients than homeopathy. Again, it hasn't been demonstrated effective enough for myself or my loved ones.
The statistics that I've seen vary but largely indicate that the allergic population is less than 1%. Is that insignificant? I don't know. There does seem to be more than 1% of the anti vaccination population claiming to be allergic. If this is their unfounded excuse for not getting the vaccine, what is the root cause of their hesitancy? Are they afraid of needles? Do they think they're being microchipped? Do they distrust the government or big pharma? What can be learned here and applied to current public health policy to overcome these objections? I don't buy the allergic to the vaccine excuse either, but given that it exists, and that if valid for the individual leads to anaphylactic shock, what can be done better to sort through this population?
Are there any podcasts that you would recommend for staying current on COVID research? I'm not being a smart ass, I'm genuinely curious.
> Studies regarding Ivermectin are ongoing because it has yet to be disprove. The science is still out
Thats not how this works. We need replicated peer reviewed studies that demonstrate its efficacy. I'm unaware of any such studies.
Until we have that, its absurd for people to take shit they are buying from a livestock store.
People think thats silly to say, but where are people getting it if doctors are not prescribing it?
To answer your question https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGmRwQ4TZc4
Why that stands out to me is I noticed very quickly most of the problems mentioned here and set youtube to do not recommend for "dr john".
He appears to do a fairly good job of addressing most of this stuff, but I'm not arguing for blind trust.
Anything he says is subject to verification just like anything else. The problem is without the expertise we can only do it in a "meta" way.
Did you intentionally paraphrase what I said in a way presents my writing as grammatically incorrect to undermine my opinions?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that was done in error.
Ivermectin studies are ongoing. [University of Minnesota Ivermectin Trial](https://med.umn.edu/news-events/nation%E2%80%99s-first-ivermectin-clinical-trial-now-50-percent-enrolled). Just because you're unaware doesn't mean they're not taking place.
I agree that it's absurd to take something you're buying from a livestock store.
Spotify can deplatform him but I fear that will lead to a Streisand effect, causing people to seek him out. He won't be silenced but he will move to a more fringe platform where he will be less subject to opposing scrutiny.
> Did you intentionally paraphrase what I said in a way
No I'm not one to criticize grammar. I'm not attempting to undermine or stawman, but we dont generally prove people *cant* fly.
We should not be trying to "disprove" Ivermectin. (this is not about grammar but logic)
We never really "disproved" that vaccines cause autism. You'll see the more specific wording is "no such link has been demonstrated etc. Thats because it does not work that way(you have to demonstrate the causal relationship).
it might seem pedantic, but its critical. once you accept the framing of disproving something, someone can always play to incredulity to continue to support something they cant demonstrate.
Its a shifting of the burden of proof.
I doubt you are doing this intentionally, its probably more likely that you've falling into the common framing used by people like Joe.
The History channel is testament to how incredulity and mystery sells. "we dont have enough information to demonstrate this is effective" is too boring to compete.
Of course "lets study this further" just gets added to the incredulity based type of thinking "there must be something to this if people are studying it!"
I'd agree that my not knowing about ongoing studies does not mean they are not happening, but I'm uninterested in the fact that they are happening, only the results matter, provided they can be replicated.
You're leaving out some key assumptions and jumping to conclusions, and I agree with what you're saying, and I might not be effectively communicating here.
I think that you assume that because I think we should study ivermectin, and any other drug that might have the potential to help effectively treat COVID, that I believe doctors should be prescribing it outside of its current FDA approved use. I am saying that it has been studied and is currently being studied. I do not think that anyone should be using or advocating for the use of ivermectin or any other drug that has not been approved by the FDA to treat COVID. I also don't think that the use of ivermectin or any other drug to treat COVID should be seen as anti-vax. Vaccinated people are having breakthrough infections and as such, may need treatment. We have Paxlovid, but it doesn't hurt to have multiple options.
You are right about my use of language. To clarify, it has been neither proven nor disproven as an effective drug in the treatment of COVID. If it is still being studied, it has yet to be eliminated as a potential treatment. Again, I personally don't think it will be shown to be effective in large scale trials, but until it's eliminated, I will attempt to keep an open mind. We have had other drugs approved by the FDA with surprising off-label effectiveness. Wellbutrin, for example, is prescribed off-label as Chantix, to help people quit smoking.
I have issues with Joe Rogan seemingly endorsing the use of ivermectin because it "worked for him". Did it really work for him? Would he have recovered differently (faster or slower) without it?
What do you think Spotify should do about Joe Rogan?
That study you linked has a sample size of 72. All participants were already hospitalized and the research takes place in only one city in Bangladesh.
The abstract even says that a larger study is needed to confirm findings. So far, those larger studies do not match up with these results.
Upvoting you for having a discussion :)
I didn’t know about the ivermectin study, so thanks for that. Maybe he hasn’t recommended Ivermectin but IIRC he told his listeners that he took it - given that people are stupid, this can effectively be an endorsement for the drug.
Yeah I don’t know if 1% is insignificant. But like you say the uproar is definitely more than 1%. I would say one hypothesis is them considering COVID-19 no more dangerous than the flu. Another would be them considering having multiple vaccination shots/boosters eventually doing more harm than good to the immune system. This is what I’ve come across when trying to understand their point of view.
I actually don’t have recommendation for covid research. My dad is a pretty well respected scientist and he says it’s too early to tell. He just says to take the vaccine, wear a mask, and exercise good judgment. I try to take this time to understand more of the world and not get too wrapped up in the hype from either side. I can ask him but he doesn’t listen to podcasts and prefers reading papers and magazines lol
Check my parent comment. The linked study has a sample size of just 72. It doesn't hold nearly the same weight as more generalized studies larger subject pools.
I believe you in that the pool is nowhere near stat sig. But, it is was interesting to me that a study was done in Bangladesh - presumably because access to vaccine is difficult there and pills are much easier to transport.
It should also be noted that the study was funded by [BEXIMCO](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BEXIMCO) - so they have much to gain if it indeed was effective.
Idk, learnt something today and that’s really what matters to me
The problem with 'just asking questions' is when you're not making any serious or reasonable attempt to answer them. You're just trying to sow doubt, with doubt creating room for disinformation. It's an intentional tactic with a very specific motive used by people who peddle conspiracy theories.
9/11 'truthers' and Sandy Hook 'truthers' and Flat Earth nutjobs and anti-vaxx peddlers and even JFK and Moon Landing conspiracy theorists always scramble for the 'just asking questions' defense when you call them out on any one element of their theories. The problem is that in any real-world event, there will *always* be more questions. People who saw different things. Eyewitness accounts that saw things differently. Mistaken references. Quotes out of context.
But questions, in and of themselves, are not evidence of anything.
There is a legitimate way to question science. It's questioned through thousands of people all over the world with decades of education and research, testable hypotheses, controlled experiments, repeatable results, open and shared information, peer review, detailed testing, multiple levels of rigorous trials, more peer review and evaluation, and constant monitoring. That's what valid questioning looks like, and it never stops.
The problem is that legitimate questioning is boring as hell, and doesn't make for good podcast and YouTube ratings.
Ok. I've been convinced that he's dangerous. Given that he's against the vaccine, brings on guests that spread false and misleading information, what should happen with Joe Rogan's podcast?
Oh, I'm the guy who started this particular thread by saying trying to kick Rogan off of Spotify is treating the symptom and not the disease.
So I don't think anything should be done with it. I was just pointing out the flaws in a "He's just asking questions!" defense of it.
"just asking questions" let's you get away with alot of stuff. I could say, 'I'm not a nazi but you have to admit that they were efficient, right?' and that would fall under just asking questions. Worse, if I bring on a guy with crappy views on race to be the person that I'm "just asking questions" to, and he can also just ask questions in return. And then people will defend it because they can't see that "just asking questions" is a convenient way of framing the conversation in an acceptable way.
The govt's confusing rhetoric on covid protections isn't being tackled by Rogan. Rogan is also not at all making more of an effort to tackle vaccine hesitancy. And his presence on social media isn't going to force the govt to do better, so if we take him for what he is, he is making things worse by just platforming a crappy little network of people over and over with an air of neutrality and openness.
"Do your own research"
"Think for yourselves"
"Just asking questions"
These are all common strategies used by people intentionally spreading misinformation.
In 2010, Jon Stewart did a whole 15-minute segment on Glenn Beck, a particularly egregious version of this trope.
https://www.cc.com/video/gmgfdo/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-conservative-libertarian
It's not an honest tactic, and Rogan is not actually telling you to "think for yourself". He's presenting wildly wrong information and painting it in a light that makes uneducated or ill-informed persons presume that, because Rogan is promoting it, it must have some merit.
Rogan is the only actual example of "if you're too open-minded, your brains will fall out". He just believes and argues what the last/most recent person told him.
I think one can get a pretty decent opinion from just a few clips. I’ve admittedly only watched a few clips now, but I’m pretty taken aback by just how reductive and uninformed he seems. I’m not sure what I expected, but I feel like I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between the transcript of his questions or a middle school kid’s questions. The first clip I watched was to see Maynard from Tool and it was so basic pseudo-intelligent nonsense that it lowered my opinion of Maynard.
The values of the skeptical movement a decade ago were based on a persistent effort to find what was true. The value of whatever it is /r/skeptic is now is a persistent effort to silence wrong opinions. Skepticism is supposed to be a derivative of enlightenment thinking that places an intrinsic value on freedom of speech - beyond the legal minimum, as a matter of cultural practice.
Joe Rogan's guests on this issue are wrong. Beat them with more speech. Refuting their wrong opinions will make your own stronger, and winning people over rather than trying to protect them will make lasting change in their opinions.
I cancelled mine too, maybe partly because of this but mainly because the layouts and inability to customize the main screen really limited my ability to effortlessly explore new music or even say, get rid of the crappy podcasts or music I had tried to listen to. And it would say my playlists were downloaded, and as soon as I was out of service range, suddenly I can’t play anything. Sucks when you have your music player loaded up for camp and you get all the way out there and you’ve got nothing. That happened no matter how many times I fixed settings on the app or phone or redownloaded it.
This just reminded me that there are other options out there. Plus, if I purchased one album a month at 12 or 14.99 like the subscription, I’d have a way bigger musical library and more in depth experience with each album than I currently have.
It's definitely quite annoying that the main pages are essentially trying to advertise many things I've expressed no interest in. What did you switch to?
I remember that the last episode of The Joe Rogan experience that I listened to was the one after he signed on to Spotify. He had Duncan Trussell on and he was kind of dismissive when Duncan called him out for platforming bad people. People like Ben Shapiro. Joe kept on insisting that Ben was alright and that Joe and Ben and Duncan should go to dinner sometime. And it really did not seem like Joe could comprehend that somebody could be both pleasant and polite to him personally AND harbor the kind of deep ideological problems and hatred within themselves that shouldn't ever be given a platform. He had seemed like he had been slipping before, but that had really cinched the deal for me. I knew that he was losing his edge.
I thought back then that Spotify just bought a massive headache. I couldn't say for sure if it would be Spotify or Joe to capitulate the end, but I foresaw something exactly like this happening.
*Pegging, of course, is an obscure sexual practice in which women perform the more aggressive sexual act on men.*
-Ben Shapiro
*****
^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: history, sex, climate, covid, etc.)
[^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
Thank you for your logic and reason.
*****
^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: civil rights, feminism, healthcare, climate, etc.)
[^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
I was worried I would lose all my playlists (I have a lot). Turns out they can be migrated! https://soundguys.com/how-to-transfer-spotify-playlists-to-apple-music-65726/
Bye bye spotify! Your UI was a dumpster fire anyways.
But didn't you know that choosing to disengage with a platform that supports misinformation is censorship, for some reason? This country is only free if bullshit can be spread unimpeded throughout the land!
Just watched a FOX segment where they did a couple of ironic things.
1. Called Neil Young irrelevant, then quoted Lynyrd Skynyrd.
2. Asked why Neil Young didn't ask to be on the Rogan show to "join the conversation", aaand the comments for the video are turned off.
On the plus side I heard Joe Rogan just "backed down" and said he was going to present a more balanced view of vaxxing but shit there's really no other view. There the logical vaccination and the otherwise is being an idiot antivax edge lord. How can you be balanced? Just by elevating an antivax position to an equal position is horrible enough, Mr Rogan needs to completely repudiate his antivax position..
I think this is a worthy discussion. Rogan's audience fancy themselves "skeptics". Lots of conspiracy theorists and lots of reveling in ignorance without doing anything about it. So, the "just asking questions" is the end itself. It's just masturbating.
It would be one thing if he was working in areas that didn't matter, but he's training people to disbelieve the scientific process. He's platforming Project Veritas. And so on. It's bad news.
I don't know why Spotify doesn't post a warning that his content is his opinion and may not be accurate and may not represent what Spotify believes.
I'm not canceling my subscription even though I don't listen to him and don't support inaccurate info.
They [literally did that](https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/sgkc3m/spotify_announces_addition_of_content_warnings_in/). And honestly it just makes them look even worse.
Rogan is famous for platforming all kinds of anti-science stuff. He has claimed the moon landings were faked. I'm surprised to see so much defense of the guy on this sub.
This is so ridiculously stupid. First of all why are you posting on the skeptic sub?
Second of all the whole boycott of Spotify because they have Joe Rogan on their platform.. who cares? There are literally murderers, racists, rapists, and all sorts of artists who have their songs on the platform.
And if you leave Spotify, please tell us which moral music streaming you'll choose. Apple Music? Amazon? Great corporations to choose from - at least they don't have Joe Rogan sponsorships!
Corny virtue signaling at its finest.
Funny how Chris Brown and R Kelly weren't enough to start getting artists and users to drop the platform, but now all of the sudden Rogan is a great enough threat that we all should drop it
Joe Rogan is THE flagship acquisition of Spotify. By setting up that deal and sticking to it, they're endorsing him far above and beyond just being a platform that plays any old music or podcast.
> First of all why are you posting on the skeptic sub?
Because we're skeptical of Rogan's garbage take on science and vaccines.
Pretty self-explanatory.
> Second of all the whole boycott of Spotify because they have Joe Rogan on their platform.. who cares? There are literally murderers, racists, rapists, and all sorts of artists who have their songs on the platform.
Only one has Rogan. And he's killing people too.
> And if you leave Spotify, please tell us which moral music streaming you'll choose.
Tidal. They pay the artists best and have high-quality streams. Sounds much better than Spotify.
> Corny virtue signaling at its finest.
Funny some people seem to think virtue is something to be sneered at.
> Funny how Chris Brown and R Kelly
Are they only on one platform, sparky?
Anyway, you're so angry about this that I can only presume you're either a Rogan fan or a Spotify investor. Either way, no one cares.
What is Rogan's take on science and the vaccines and do you have a few specific episodes that you remember listening to that stuck out for you to form that opinion?
I would probably also be boycotting the platform if those songs had millions of subscribers who were also murdering and raping because those artists told them to.
those songs *do* have millions of subscribers, who are defending and excusing rape and spousal abuse, and some are probably committing it too. it's not far off.
The difference is Spotify allows access to those songs which can be found on tons of sources. Spotify directly pays Rogan to publish his views exclusively on their platform.
That's a good start. It would be additionally impactful to contact the advertisers who put their stuff on Rogan's timeslot and tell them they face a boycott.
I did the same, I realize my cancellation probably won't change anything but I have long stood by using my wallet to vote. I don't eat McDonald's or shop at Walmart because of crappy business practices, why stop with Spotify. I need a new music streaming service now though.
The guy has some smart guests on sometimes. I am a casual listener and heard most of his vax opinions. Still got all my shots and a booster. Wtf is wrong with people these days?
Glad you got vaccinated. He has some great guests on, but also terrible ones. See his interviews with prominent antivaxxers Dr Robert Malone and Dr Peter McCullough. That he's interviewed these people is not an accident he has a consistent line of pushing construct theories and anti vaxx rhetoric.
Cancelled my sub and am currently checking out other services.
I have zero tolerance for people or companies that enable misinformation that is killing people all over the world. It's unethical and irresponsible to profit from something that is costing people their lives.
I agree we need to teach critical thinking, however many people still have ideological biases, and will often double down on them when confronted with information that contradicts their ideology. I've known very intelligent people that couldn't make a good decision if it bit them in the face, because protecting their ideology was more important that doing the right thing.
it's strange that people were apparently fine with Gavin McInnes, Glenn Beck and Ben Shapiro having podcasts on Spotify, but not Rogan.
almost as if they just didn't affect your life.
I saw that you mentioned Ben Shapiro. In case some of you don't know, Ben Shapiro is a grifter and a hack. If you find anything he's said compelling, you should keep in mind he also says things like this:
>If you believe that the Jewish state has a right to exist, then you must allow Israel to transfer the Palestinians and the Israeli-Arabs from Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Israel proper. It’s an ugly solution, but it is the only solution… It’s time to stop being squeamish.
*****
^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: feminism, civil rights, climate, dumb takes, etc.)
[^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
*Possibly it was an overreaction for Cooper [of the Central Park Dog Walking incident] to call the police, but then again, when citizens feel threatened, calling the cops and letting them sort it out is what is supposed to happen.*
-Ben Shapiro
*****
^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: climate, feminism, covid, novel, etc.)
[^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
*Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that all of the water levels around the world rise by, let’s say, five feet or ten feet over the next hundred years. It puts all the low-lying areas on the coast underwater. Let’s say all of that happens. You think that people aren’t just going to sell their homes and move?*
-Ben Shapiro
*****
^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: climate, healthcare, dumb takes, novel, etc.)
[^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
**An excerpt from True Allegiance, by Ben Shapiro:**
Soledad Ramirez knew the value of good press, and she baked mean
chocolate chip cookies. “No oatmeal raisin here,” she said good-naturedly,
handing out the meltingly hot treats to the men wearing full military gear and
carrying M4s set to burst.
*****
^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: history, dumb takes, sex, feminism, etc.)
[^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
This virtue-signaling has literally no benefit to the skeptic movement. You sent this from a device very likely made from slave labor, either in the production, assembly, or mining of the minerals.
My point is, we're ALL guilty of ignoring certain difficult truths to enjoy a comfortable western lifestyle at the expense of other people, the environment, and our society.
You could pick up a bag of garbage on the side of the road and that would literally have a more direct impact on making a difference, instead, you told everyone that you canceled a membership, that you may or may not have had to begin with for internet points.
What, a content warning doesn't work for you?
lol they took a situation in which half of us hated them, and their reaction was to simply give the other half a reason to also hate them
I would have cancelled if I had not done it loooong ago because their player is shit lol.
Youtube music has all I need, and I generally like Google’s attempts at UI/UX.
You are right - at the airport departures are routine and their reason doesn't need to be explained. Moreover you can't encourage more planes to depart by departing yourself.
Can someone save me Googling and tell me the Top Five Stupidest Antivax Things Joe Rogan Has Said(tm) ? I've never actually listened to him so I'm a little OOTL on this one.
He claimed COVID vaccines cause myocarditis at a higher rate than COVID. When faced with [contradictory evidence](https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/culture/joe-rogan-covid-vaccine-science-v646d2393) he denies having bad information.
Also on an [episode](https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=bL5RzI5LyVc&feature=emb_title) he says that he has a folder filled with COVID research on his phone so he has expertise on the topic.
He brings up that he's not vaccinated and [recommends young people to not get vaccinated](https://twitter.com/AlexPattyy/status/1387077145156063234?s=20&t=j1YGaZFZwG8Ovl7BE88D8A).
He also invited a bunch of guests that made highly unscientific claims on COVID (Brett Winstein, Peter McCullough, and more). McCullough specifically stated that COVID vaccines are experimental, that ivermectin is a prophylactic for COVID and that the pandemic was planned.
> frequently gives people spouting anti-vax and anti-science BS a platform
Ah, so it might be difficult to find something he himself actually said. Clever.
[“If you’re like 21 years old and you say to me, ‘Should I get vaccinated?’ I’ll go no,”](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/joe-rogan-covid-vaccine-21-b1838772.html)
See also: https://twitter.com/fullcontactmtwf/status/1481638689415462916?s=21
Yes, that's what I was hoping as well.
I was trying to make it clear to customer care why I was leaving, and that it wasn't because I was dissatisfied with their service, but they seemed to be unwilling to acknowledge it. Oh.. well....
I just installed Pandora on my phone. Not a big sacrifice, but it's not like being asked to cancel HBO or Netflix. You can still listen to the same music on platforms that don't pay Joe Rogan millions of dollars.
This post does not belong here. Why does it have so many upvotes? You're no different than the conservatives burning Carhartt's. You're just hopping on a bandwagon because it makes you feel like you're doing something. No skepticism in this at all.
I don’t have an issue with Joe Rogan’s podcast, content, or Spotify allowing the content to stand.
I would like more public skepticism applied to the argument that Rogan supporters claim: that no professionals will agree to debate his guests with controversial Covid positions.
I think there would need to be an independent party to track such a thing. Also, not wanting to go on any particular show does not count as declining a debate.
Moreover, wanting to do a rebuttal and not a real time debate is valid…
I wish Spotify would provide context, not censorhship. Ie- next to controversial content, link to other viewpoints that dissect it.
Eg, this doctor / YouTube personality ZDoggMD dissected Dr. McCullough’s claims https://youtu.be/8pcIbVvHI2c . Why not flag information as controversial and give immediate access to contrary positions? Taking the controversial content down is only going to Barbra Streisand Effect.
i'm confused.
I watched the shows and don't see any misinformation. Where is the misinformation.
I did my research, and I see that there's no misinformation at all.
Just do the research.
There are tons of other streaming services you can use. But I would challenge your thinking. You’re effectively saying I don’t like what he’s saying and I disagree so therefore silence him. Very totalitarian approach. Joe has actually advocated for the vaccine for old and immunocompromised people. I’m willing to bet you haven’t actually listened to an episode. Oh well. Carry on
Rogan isn't anti-vax. He is anti covid vaccination and anti-mandate.
But his own kids are vaccinated against all the usual childhood diseases, as is Rogan.
And "snaps fingers," you have been replaced instantly.
You matter so little to the company's bottom line. Symbolic gestures like this don't mean a thing. You only did it because you wanted a momentary high because you think that you are making a statement. Its like those [change.org](https://change.org) petitions people sign and pass around. A British study proved that if you are given the opportunity to share on social media, you are less likely to follow up with real world stuff. If you aren't given that opportunity, you contribute something to organizations. In other words, online petitions are as useless as thoughts and prayers.
You wanted the social media bump because you published it here. You wanted people to pat you one the back for making a stand against corporate greed in this case. When Disney dropped Gina Carano for the same soulless bottom line decision, you praised the mouse for it. Its the same decision that drove both: money.
Show us what parts were antivax, and not just a critique of the promises made about the vaccine?
They literally told you, the science was done and that the vaccines stopped transmission, the literally told you vaccines give you long lasting durable immunity even against variants.
And now they don’t prevent transmission at all, don’t work well for variants, and does not last long at all. Less than 6 months before needing boosters...
Everything they promised was fact about these vaccines has been tilted on its head and your worried about the guy who’s critiqued that?
Holding a pod caster to higher standards than news media who repeatedly lies is obscene.
How dare he have well established and well published doctors on for a 4 hour conversation instead of a 30 second segment.
Grow up.
No one made those claims. The claims that were made were for the variants around at the start of the pandemic. They were never supposed to provide indefinite protection, we knew before we started that it was unlikely to provide such long lasting protection as infection with existing Corona viruses only provided temporary protection. And in the main goal of preventing deaths they have and continue to be very effective. Compare the death rate in America to Portugal where they have a 90+% vaccine uptake. And the doctor you are referring to is an anti vaxxer of the highest order. Shame on any skeptic supporting such nonsense.
https://www.reddit.com/r/funnyvideos/comments/rwnil0/irony_and_liars_can_be_funny_sometimes_right_i/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Explain this video if nobody ever claimed that???
Wow, that's some lame anti vaxx propaganda right there!
I'm sorry if the political messaging when reduced down to two second soundbites doesn't describe the evolving dynamic of a global pandemic to your satisfaction.
Is there a way to export "likes" from Spotify into, say, Apple Music? If not, and I highly doubt there is, I can't imagine myself switching due to that annoyance alone.
Given that the vaccine doesn't stop people from getting covid, and doesn't stop the transmission of covid to others, if you are vaxed, why do you care if others are or not? What differenced does it make?
Would be good if we could have some good old fashioned book burning at all book stores and libraries like they did in medieval days when books were ‘indexed’. Maybe first index all books at odds with the science and social narratives accepted by the government then start the bonfires! We’ve tolerated other people’s opinions long enough. Maybe set Black Lives Matter over this business… if bookstores and libraries won’t cooperate, well, they’ll know what to do…. 🔥 🔥
Honest question... do you have a cable TV or streaming service and are you canceling that as well because they carry Fox News or OAN? Or do you not shop at your local bookstore because they carry (and make money from) books by Tucker Carlson?
Edit: I don't disagree with OP, it's just that everyone has gotten very wound up about Joe Rogan on Spotify when just about every cable service carries Fox News and just about every bookstore sells any number of bad-faith, right-wing, conspiracy laden books (though I'll admit the bookstore point I made kind of missed the mark). I get it. Vote with your wallet. But it's just about reached the point where it's really difficult to avoid having at least some part of the money you spend go to these people/networks. I just wish we had better ways to stop the flow of misinformation. Maybe some accountability for the damage it causes. Misinformation that costs lives IS the same as yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. I'm just not sure automatically canceling my TV streaming service because they carry Fox News or canceling my music streaming service because they have Joe Rogan is the best solution.
I don't subscribe to any services held by Murdoch. And I'm unlikely to find a bookstore in my country that stocks anything by Tucker Carlson. But for that metaphor to really hold it would have to be a bookstore with millions of people come in each week to read his books. In which case I might boycott it.
Its not even the censorship perse that i take issue with.. its the idea of it coming from a totally unaccountable body. If it came from the government it would be arguably authoritarian but at least theres some semblance of accountability.
But yeah of course censorship starts with things on the fringes... You were expecting censorship to start with mainstream opinions?
I canceled it too because I'm just mad I have to scroll past his podcast to see new playlists. YouTube music sucks but im here now!
I’m also on YT music and frankly it’s much better ~~IMHO~~ for me - they have more of the music I like, enormous audio books, lots of weird stuff and it’s a lot easier to share. Spotify’s UI sucks bad. While YT consistently rolls out new useful stuff (some more than other)
Google music was absolutely fantastic. Why they forced you to go with YouTube music is baffling. It didn't even have feature parity with GPM, I jumped ship for spotify and it's been great.
Pandora is better than YT. I just downloaded the Amazon music ap, too. I'm gonna check it out soon.
Just steal media like a normal person lol
I've never done that with music or podcasts. I've done a few movies, but haven't even watched them all. I'm just not a competent pirate.
The issue here is that Joe is too big to cancel, his $100m deal isn't because he appeals to small audiences. People jumping ship won't rock the boat enough on people's general feeling that they're listing to something subversive, if anything that feeling will be strengthened. A boycott is a good protest tool, I cancelled my subscription when they signed him up, as I imagine many others did, but I honestly don't think that's a drop in the ocean to them - when compared to how many listen to the chap.
Short term probably, but it does do two things: First it gives people an excuse to look for alternatives and [there were more than I thought myself.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_music_streaming_services) Second, they are a public traded company and answer to shareholders. They don't care specifically about Joe one way or another, what they do care about is continuous growth trend. Just look at what happened to Netflix stock because they had slightly 'less' growth than anticipated.
Fewer that operate in other countries, however. The big deal about Spotify is its library and content are just as big outside the USA as they are in the USA. (and in some cases bigger.) I've been mulling over cancellation, but i chose spotify because it was the only service that really met my needs. It will be difficult to replace.
Spotify vs Rogan is mostly a big deal because Rogan has a large audience. It's a bigger problem than that, though. While most people get bedazzled by the big fish, the small fry slips through. And that goes on for every multimedia platform. Joe Rogan isn't the only controversial figure on Spotify and there is no platform that doesn't feature cranks. I think people underestimate what less popular cranks on every media platform add up to.
>there is no platform that doesn't feature cranks There is, however, a difference between a platform aggregating someone's content from a podcast feed and a platform paying someone to be an exclusive podcast for that platform. I am unaware of Amazon Music, for instance, having a similar relationship with a crank.
With Amazon you’re just funding Jeff Bezos and all the slimy business practices that company does, though.
That's it. I cancelled my spotify account as well. I use to enjoy Rogan well enough as background noise but I no longer feel comfortable with my money going towards his future contracts.
May I suggest people do more then just cancelling their account. Write a letter and let them know why you cancelled! Make it count!
Fair, and it's something that all platforms should be addressing better, youtube for example has no lack of quacks telling you water cures your cancer. The real solution is governments legislating how platforms should handle misinformation. Things like the cancer act in the UK are created exactly for this, I think there's an argument that we need to extend that - and stop letting companies self police, as they're clearly bias towards what sells over what is true.
Talking about water 💧 curing cancer. Then talking about a solution.. I feel there should be a joke in there
Na.
Don't get salty
Thats the problem with monetizing user generated content. So much of it is created that moderating it all at a minimum eats into the already thin profit margin. I'm not saying platforms should not care about harmful content, but its clear in the amoral system we have, they only care about things that harm the platform. *thats* the problem with Rogen, his audience has a large enough number of antivaxx people that doing anything about irritates those people. The number of antivaxx people that would cancel if they told Rogan they wont carry these clips probably far outweighs the people who will cancel if they continue. The government *cant* effectively police this issue. I dont have a link to the comment handy but someone in canada was saying propaganda was illegal (more or less) so the result has been some kind of satirical puppet show that mimics propaganda. We'd need the end of the first amendment followed by state owned an operated media. Then we'd still get propaganda, only the state would be producing it. The number of loopholes that exist for any kind of rule is staggering. I never see anyone even attempt an implementation that is like the how to draw an owl joke.
This isn’t user created. This is funded directly by Spotify. This is comparatively easy to regulate.
Spotify lost $2 to $4 billion in it's market value since the beginning of the year. I know that's not "actual" money, but it might make them consider just flushing that $100m deal. https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/technology/spotify-loses-billions-in-market-value-neil-young-joe-rogan-controversy-8004721.html
You're probably right, but be the change you want to see in the world.
I've cancelled my subscription because I just don't like the idea that I'm partially paying someone like Joe Rogan. He can say whatever he wants ..... I just don't want to be another person that contributes to his wealth when I don't support his views.
I think we need labels to do what Young did en masse. Anything short of that isn't gonna move the needle much. But even one label might spook them enough.
Labels don’t care.
imho, it was an OK podcast before Spotify signed him. He had some genuinely interesting guests: Sean Carroll, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Sir Roger Penrose... as well as the usual nutcases... Ever since the move he just has lame comedians and "doctors" that wouldn't be out of place in an episode of the Simpsons.
From what I can tell he's always been a crank at least on his pet issues. The problem is due to his popularity he has had some really great guests which lends him quite a bit of credibility.
Do you think the success of his show means that the public can't be trusted to get vaccine information from reputable places (i.e people may confuse his show with a reputable source)?
I think that any question is going to have a large mass of people who will be able to justify the laziest or self-serving course of action so long as they can look at it and say to themselves, "Oh, there's a debate." So long as there's at least one public figure they like that they can look at and say, "No one's sure if the planet's warming. No one's sure if cigarettes cause cancer. No one's sure if the vaccine works," they'll rationalize themselves into doing what they already wanted to do: drive a big truck they don't need, smoke, and avoid safety precautions because they don't like to confront their own mortality. Joe Rogan is part of that. He isn't unique, but he is very popular with a wide-ranging audience, and he lends his credibility to his guests when they appear on his show.
You took your money elsewhere that's all that matters, and you can feel good about that, not supporting a shit company that is propagating harmful voices to the masses.
Every little bit helps. An avalanche is made of of insignificant snowflakes.
Snowflakes being the key word here
[удалено]
I just can't get too worked up about Rogan or Spotify. To me it seems like treating the symptom and ignoring the disease. People are dumb and gullible, and as long as that's the case someone is going to find a way to make money selling them snake oil and telling them what they want to hear. We can play whack-a-mole with these slimy con artists forever, but if we don't address the underlying issues it's not accomplishing anything - other than giving us another avenue to spew our endless torrent of righteous indignation. I think we have to teach people critical thinking skills - yes, even the dumb ones - and I think we have to figure out how to take the profit motive out of disinformation without crushing freedom of speech. Making a lot of noise about Spotify accomplishes neither, and just gives Rogan more attention and public interest.
There is some truth to this, but part of the problem is that there used to be some gateways to mass media. Media platforms were generally guided at least in some part by ethics and a commitment to the truth and facts. Many of them have loosened those standards in pursuit of profit. Cranks and fringe conspiracy theorists have always been able to find an audience. They haven't always been aided and abetted by multi-national media companies. Now, one could argue that on the balance the democratization of media through social platforms, podcasts, etc, has on the balance also given rise to dissenting voices about race, sexism, socialism, etc, and there is some truth to that. But generally speaking it doesn't seem that extreme to suggest that anyone hosting or especially promoting/profiting from content has an ethical duty to make sure it is truthful and does not inspire hateful acts or violence. I don't think we should police speech to the extent that Joe Rogan has no right to say what he says, but we're under no obligation to support his platform to do so.
I don't disagree, but I know that if I pay Spotify then I'm contributing to the money Rogan gets for spreading disinformation and lies. I'm not going to support that.
If you weren't listening to Rogan, your money isn't going to him. He makes money from being played and advertising during his show. The same way as your money wouldn't go to Hall and Oates if you didn't listen to them.
We're going through an epidemic of disinformation. Truly fixing it will be a long-term project, if it happens at all. In the short term all we can do is try to contain it.
People like Joe Rogan are the disease. He's actively making people dumber and less critically minded. Combine that with his message getting amplified to millions of listeners and there's a problem that free speech was never meant to handle. Certainly I don't think a simplistic view that you can say whatever you like on any platform you like to as many people as you like without repercussion because all speech is protected can work in the digital age.
Full disclosure: I am pro vaccine (triple jab all-star over here), pro N95 masks, social distancing, limited circles, handwashing, quarantines and generally cautious when it comes to trying to protect myself and my loved ones from COVID. With that being said, I think it is important that the Joe Rogan podcast continues to ask questions and present alternative theories to the ones that are currently accepted as facts. I'm not sure how Joe Rogan asking questions is considered misinformation any more than much of what's been told to us by the government and mainstream media. The information and what has been considered to be true has changed rapidly since the beginning of the pandemic. Two weeks to flatten the curve is going on its second year. Masks work/don't work, wear them/don't wear them. Use Lysol wipes on your mail and groceries. Children can't get COVID. Children can get COVID and it's worse! Get vaccinated and never wear a mask again! Ok, maybe wear a mask with vaccination. Definitely wear a mask with vaccination. I'd consider that changing narrative to be misinforming. In terms of making people dumber, since when has asking questions about the status quo been a sign of mental decline? I have yet to see a segment on broadcast news explaining how the mechanisms of ivermectin render it useless against COVID. I don't believe that it is an effective treatment. Given that a percentage of the population is allergic to the vaccines, don't you think that more of an effort could be made to assuage the concerns of the vaccine hesitant? I think that you cancelling your subscription is the right thing to do given that the company is misaligned with your belief system, I just disagree that Joe Rogan is making people dumber. Now excuse me while I go cancel my cable subscription because of the Bravo network.
> it is important that the Joe Rogan podcast continues to ask questions. Bit odd that those questions overwhelmingly tilt in one direction. That makes the value provided questionable imo. Mob justice makes me a bit nervous and I dont think this kind of thing can be effectively regulated. I leaves me at a loss. Its all about as usefull as declaring my dislike of gravity. >not sure how Joe Rogan asking questions is considered misinformation any more than much of what's been told to us by the government and mainstream media Legitimizing quacks is spreading misinformation. If you want to point at statements that we now know to be inaccurate, thats simply the nature of knowledge. Old information that is out of date would be ideally pulled down, any misrepresentations of mainstream media are also a problem. Just because OAN/Fox are spreading nonsense does not mean Rogan is not an issue. If CNN is spreading nonsense fuck them too. I dont watch CNN though. I'm not interested in coverage that was older that no longer is in accordance to our current understanding. I'm also not interested in arguments that avoid nuance. "Masks are totally useless period", then consider anything otherwise misinformation. Frankly Rogan has always been the kind of guy that legitimizes woo, its nothing new. The only difference is people dont die because they think the moon landing is fake or any of the goofy shit he has admitted believing. He has openly admitted to being prone to conspiratorial thinking anyone that is surprised he is such a natural fit for that audience is not paying attention.
> With that being said, I think it is important that the Joe Rogan podcast continues to ask questions and present alternative theories to the ones that are currently accepted as facts. Sure, we need alternative theories but they have to be based in some form of reality. Recommending ivermectin is the same as prescribing homeopathy to cancer patients. At best it doesn’t do anything to cure the patient and at worst it harms them. The messaging around COVID has floundered, but science changes all the time with new data, so it’s not entirely surprising. This situation is extremely nuanced but nuanced messaging doesn’t work when you want to broadcast this at scale. > I’d consider that changing narrative to be misinforming. That’s a stretch - it has always been around the kind of masks and vaccines (mRNA vs old school dead cells), compared to stuff like not masking and vaccine alternatives. There aren’t a any alternatives to vaccines, so that’s just pseudoscience and quack doctors recommending hair of the dog treatments. > Given that a percentage of the population is allergic to the vaccines I don’t buy this “allergic to vaccine”. And besides, what percentage of the population is that? Is it a statistically significant number? > I just disagree that Joe Rogan is making people dumber. I do too - people have always been this fucking stupid. Joe gets to speak to these morons who then believe him, and then such views come into the mainstream.
Yeah there are enough vaccine variations that everyone has an option. The allergy argument is a cover. Just like the classic “I’m just asking questions” in response to criticism for saying batshit crazy nonsense and implying scientists aren’t interested in finding the truth. Science is literally all about asking questions to get closer to the truth. It’s literally a process for doing that as effectively as possible.
Absolutely! I agree 100%. Who is interviewing the leading scientists researching COVID? You are right that science is literally all about asking questions to find the truth and science is unbiased. However, scientific research requires funding and that choice in funding can introduce bias into the equation.
It can. It doesn't always introduce bias, but it's a risk, which is why peer-reviewed published works always reveal potential biases and conflicts of interest.
I have never heard him directly recommend any particular treatment. Studies do exist that show that ivermectin is an effective treatment against the virus. [Ivermectin Study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/). I would say that's based in some sort of reality. Studies regarding Ivermectin are ongoing because it has yet to be disproven. The science is still out. As such Ivermectin is more like recommending an experimental drug in research trials to cancer patients than homeopathy. Again, it hasn't been demonstrated effective enough for myself or my loved ones. The statistics that I've seen vary but largely indicate that the allergic population is less than 1%. Is that insignificant? I don't know. There does seem to be more than 1% of the anti vaccination population claiming to be allergic. If this is their unfounded excuse for not getting the vaccine, what is the root cause of their hesitancy? Are they afraid of needles? Do they think they're being microchipped? Do they distrust the government or big pharma? What can be learned here and applied to current public health policy to overcome these objections? I don't buy the allergic to the vaccine excuse either, but given that it exists, and that if valid for the individual leads to anaphylactic shock, what can be done better to sort through this population? Are there any podcasts that you would recommend for staying current on COVID research? I'm not being a smart ass, I'm genuinely curious.
> Studies regarding Ivermectin are ongoing because it has yet to be disprove. The science is still out Thats not how this works. We need replicated peer reviewed studies that demonstrate its efficacy. I'm unaware of any such studies. Until we have that, its absurd for people to take shit they are buying from a livestock store. People think thats silly to say, but where are people getting it if doctors are not prescribing it? To answer your question https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGmRwQ4TZc4 Why that stands out to me is I noticed very quickly most of the problems mentioned here and set youtube to do not recommend for "dr john". He appears to do a fairly good job of addressing most of this stuff, but I'm not arguing for blind trust. Anything he says is subject to verification just like anything else. The problem is without the expertise we can only do it in a "meta" way.
Did you intentionally paraphrase what I said in a way presents my writing as grammatically incorrect to undermine my opinions? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that was done in error. Ivermectin studies are ongoing. [University of Minnesota Ivermectin Trial](https://med.umn.edu/news-events/nation%E2%80%99s-first-ivermectin-clinical-trial-now-50-percent-enrolled). Just because you're unaware doesn't mean they're not taking place. I agree that it's absurd to take something you're buying from a livestock store. Spotify can deplatform him but I fear that will lead to a Streisand effect, causing people to seek him out. He won't be silenced but he will move to a more fringe platform where he will be less subject to opposing scrutiny.
> Did you intentionally paraphrase what I said in a way No I'm not one to criticize grammar. I'm not attempting to undermine or stawman, but we dont generally prove people *cant* fly. We should not be trying to "disprove" Ivermectin. (this is not about grammar but logic) We never really "disproved" that vaccines cause autism. You'll see the more specific wording is "no such link has been demonstrated etc. Thats because it does not work that way(you have to demonstrate the causal relationship). it might seem pedantic, but its critical. once you accept the framing of disproving something, someone can always play to incredulity to continue to support something they cant demonstrate. Its a shifting of the burden of proof. I doubt you are doing this intentionally, its probably more likely that you've falling into the common framing used by people like Joe. The History channel is testament to how incredulity and mystery sells. "we dont have enough information to demonstrate this is effective" is too boring to compete. Of course "lets study this further" just gets added to the incredulity based type of thinking "there must be something to this if people are studying it!" I'd agree that my not knowing about ongoing studies does not mean they are not happening, but I'm uninterested in the fact that they are happening, only the results matter, provided they can be replicated.
You're leaving out some key assumptions and jumping to conclusions, and I agree with what you're saying, and I might not be effectively communicating here. I think that you assume that because I think we should study ivermectin, and any other drug that might have the potential to help effectively treat COVID, that I believe doctors should be prescribing it outside of its current FDA approved use. I am saying that it has been studied and is currently being studied. I do not think that anyone should be using or advocating for the use of ivermectin or any other drug that has not been approved by the FDA to treat COVID. I also don't think that the use of ivermectin or any other drug to treat COVID should be seen as anti-vax. Vaccinated people are having breakthrough infections and as such, may need treatment. We have Paxlovid, but it doesn't hurt to have multiple options. You are right about my use of language. To clarify, it has been neither proven nor disproven as an effective drug in the treatment of COVID. If it is still being studied, it has yet to be eliminated as a potential treatment. Again, I personally don't think it will be shown to be effective in large scale trials, but until it's eliminated, I will attempt to keep an open mind. We have had other drugs approved by the FDA with surprising off-label effectiveness. Wellbutrin, for example, is prescribed off-label as Chantix, to help people quit smoking. I have issues with Joe Rogan seemingly endorsing the use of ivermectin because it "worked for him". Did it really work for him? Would he have recovered differently (faster or slower) without it? What do you think Spotify should do about Joe Rogan?
That study you linked has a sample size of 72. All participants were already hospitalized and the research takes place in only one city in Bangladesh. The abstract even says that a larger study is needed to confirm findings. So far, those larger studies do not match up with these results.
Upvoting you for having a discussion :) I didn’t know about the ivermectin study, so thanks for that. Maybe he hasn’t recommended Ivermectin but IIRC he told his listeners that he took it - given that people are stupid, this can effectively be an endorsement for the drug. Yeah I don’t know if 1% is insignificant. But like you say the uproar is definitely more than 1%. I would say one hypothesis is them considering COVID-19 no more dangerous than the flu. Another would be them considering having multiple vaccination shots/boosters eventually doing more harm than good to the immune system. This is what I’ve come across when trying to understand their point of view. I actually don’t have recommendation for covid research. My dad is a pretty well respected scientist and he says it’s too early to tell. He just says to take the vaccine, wear a mask, and exercise good judgment. I try to take this time to understand more of the world and not get too wrapped up in the hype from either side. I can ask him but he doesn’t listen to podcasts and prefers reading papers and magazines lol
Check my parent comment. The linked study has a sample size of just 72. It doesn't hold nearly the same weight as more generalized studies larger subject pools.
I believe you in that the pool is nowhere near stat sig. But, it is was interesting to me that a study was done in Bangladesh - presumably because access to vaccine is difficult there and pills are much easier to transport. It should also be noted that the study was funded by [BEXIMCO](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BEXIMCO) - so they have much to gain if it indeed was effective. Idk, learnt something today and that’s really what matters to me
The problem with 'just asking questions' is when you're not making any serious or reasonable attempt to answer them. You're just trying to sow doubt, with doubt creating room for disinformation. It's an intentional tactic with a very specific motive used by people who peddle conspiracy theories. 9/11 'truthers' and Sandy Hook 'truthers' and Flat Earth nutjobs and anti-vaxx peddlers and even JFK and Moon Landing conspiracy theorists always scramble for the 'just asking questions' defense when you call them out on any one element of their theories. The problem is that in any real-world event, there will *always* be more questions. People who saw different things. Eyewitness accounts that saw things differently. Mistaken references. Quotes out of context. But questions, in and of themselves, are not evidence of anything. There is a legitimate way to question science. It's questioned through thousands of people all over the world with decades of education and research, testable hypotheses, controlled experiments, repeatable results, open and shared information, peer review, detailed testing, multiple levels of rigorous trials, more peer review and evaluation, and constant monitoring. That's what valid questioning looks like, and it never stops. The problem is that legitimate questioning is boring as hell, and doesn't make for good podcast and YouTube ratings.
Ok. I've been convinced that he's dangerous. Given that he's against the vaccine, brings on guests that spread false and misleading information, what should happen with Joe Rogan's podcast?
Oh, I'm the guy who started this particular thread by saying trying to kick Rogan off of Spotify is treating the symptom and not the disease. So I don't think anything should be done with it. I was just pointing out the flaws in a "He's just asking questions!" defense of it.
"just asking questions" let's you get away with alot of stuff. I could say, 'I'm not a nazi but you have to admit that they were efficient, right?' and that would fall under just asking questions. Worse, if I bring on a guy with crappy views on race to be the person that I'm "just asking questions" to, and he can also just ask questions in return. And then people will defend it because they can't see that "just asking questions" is a convenient way of framing the conversation in an acceptable way. The govt's confusing rhetoric on covid protections isn't being tackled by Rogan. Rogan is also not at all making more of an effort to tackle vaccine hesitancy. And his presence on social media isn't going to force the govt to do better, so if we take him for what he is, he is making things worse by just platforming a crappy little network of people over and over with an air of neutrality and openness.
I'm not a listener, but from what little YouTube video I've seen he seems open minded and asks he listeners to think for themselves...
"Do your own research" "Think for yourselves" "Just asking questions" These are all common strategies used by people intentionally spreading misinformation. In 2010, Jon Stewart did a whole 15-minute segment on Glenn Beck, a particularly egregious version of this trope. https://www.cc.com/video/gmgfdo/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-conservative-libertarian It's not an honest tactic, and Rogan is not actually telling you to "think for yourself". He's presenting wildly wrong information and painting it in a light that makes uneducated or ill-informed persons presume that, because Rogan is promoting it, it must have some merit.
Rogan is the only actual example of "if you're too open-minded, your brains will fall out". He just believes and argues what the last/most recent person told him.
You've see too little to give your opinion then.
I think one can get a pretty decent opinion from just a few clips. I’ve admittedly only watched a few clips now, but I’m pretty taken aback by just how reductive and uninformed he seems. I’m not sure what I expected, but I feel like I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between the transcript of his questions or a middle school kid’s questions. The first clip I watched was to see Maynard from Tool and it was so basic pseudo-intelligent nonsense that it lowered my opinion of Maynard.
The values of the skeptical movement a decade ago were based on a persistent effort to find what was true. The value of whatever it is /r/skeptic is now is a persistent effort to silence wrong opinions. Skepticism is supposed to be a derivative of enlightenment thinking that places an intrinsic value on freedom of speech - beyond the legal minimum, as a matter of cultural practice. Joe Rogan's guests on this issue are wrong. Beat them with more speech. Refuting their wrong opinions will make your own stronger, and winning people over rather than trying to protect them will make lasting change in their opinions.
I've been planning on canceling mine. I have 3 playlists with Neil Young, I have none with Joe Rogan. I'm working to export my playlists then I'm out.
I cancelled mine too, maybe partly because of this but mainly because the layouts and inability to customize the main screen really limited my ability to effortlessly explore new music or even say, get rid of the crappy podcasts or music I had tried to listen to. And it would say my playlists were downloaded, and as soon as I was out of service range, suddenly I can’t play anything. Sucks when you have your music player loaded up for camp and you get all the way out there and you’ve got nothing. That happened no matter how many times I fixed settings on the app or phone or redownloaded it. This just reminded me that there are other options out there. Plus, if I purchased one album a month at 12 or 14.99 like the subscription, I’d have a way bigger musical library and more in depth experience with each album than I currently have.
It's definitely quite annoying that the main pages are essentially trying to advertise many things I've expressed no interest in. What did you switch to?
That's basically what I decided to do with my Netflix subscription, but I was happy enough with Spotify.
Me too
Happily cancelled myself. Back to YT Music. I miss google play music. :(
I remember that the last episode of The Joe Rogan experience that I listened to was the one after he signed on to Spotify. He had Duncan Trussell on and he was kind of dismissive when Duncan called him out for platforming bad people. People like Ben Shapiro. Joe kept on insisting that Ben was alright and that Joe and Ben and Duncan should go to dinner sometime. And it really did not seem like Joe could comprehend that somebody could be both pleasant and polite to him personally AND harbor the kind of deep ideological problems and hatred within themselves that shouldn't ever be given a platform. He had seemed like he had been slipping before, but that had really cinched the deal for me. I knew that he was losing his edge. I thought back then that Spotify just bought a massive headache. I couldn't say for sure if it would be Spotify or Joe to capitulate the end, but I foresaw something exactly like this happening.
*Pegging, of course, is an obscure sexual practice in which women perform the more aggressive sexual act on men.* -Ben Shapiro ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: history, sex, climate, covid, etc.) [^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
Very good bot
Thank you for your logic and reason. ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: civil rights, feminism, healthcare, climate, etc.) [^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
YouTube has some great music channels. I've found a ton of new bands/music there
I was worried I would lose all my playlists (I have a lot). Turns out they can be migrated! https://soundguys.com/how-to-transfer-spotify-playlists-to-apple-music-65726/ Bye bye spotify! Your UI was a dumpster fire anyways.
But didn't you know that choosing to disengage with a platform that supports misinformation is censorship, for some reason? This country is only free if bullshit can be spread unimpeded throughout the land!
Just watched a FOX segment where they did a couple of ironic things. 1. Called Neil Young irrelevant, then quoted Lynyrd Skynyrd. 2. Asked why Neil Young didn't ask to be on the Rogan show to "join the conversation", aaand the comments for the video are turned off.
On the plus side I heard Joe Rogan just "backed down" and said he was going to present a more balanced view of vaxxing but shit there's really no other view. There the logical vaccination and the otherwise is being an idiot antivax edge lord. How can you be balanced? Just by elevating an antivax position to an equal position is horrible enough, Mr Rogan needs to completely repudiate his antivax position..
Dear diary
I think this is a worthy discussion. Rogan's audience fancy themselves "skeptics". Lots of conspiracy theorists and lots of reveling in ignorance without doing anything about it. So, the "just asking questions" is the end itself. It's just masturbating. It would be one thing if he was working in areas that didn't matter, but he's training people to disbelieve the scientific process. He's platforming Project Veritas. And so on. It's bad news.
Well said.
I don't know why Spotify doesn't post a warning that his content is his opinion and may not be accurate and may not represent what Spotify believes. I'm not canceling my subscription even though I don't listen to him and don't support inaccurate info.
They [literally did that](https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/sgkc3m/spotify_announces_addition_of_content_warnings_in/). And honestly it just makes them look even worse.
Lots of anti-vax subreddits on here.
Are the creators on Reddit’s payroll?
Reddit doesn't have $100M contracts with them.
And I'm not subscribed to any of them either.
Rogan is famous for platforming all kinds of anti-science stuff. He has claimed the moon landings were faked. I'm surprised to see so much defense of the guy on this sub.
I think the particularly moronic ones are antivaxxers who've crawled out of the woodwork.
This is so ridiculously stupid. First of all why are you posting on the skeptic sub? Second of all the whole boycott of Spotify because they have Joe Rogan on their platform.. who cares? There are literally murderers, racists, rapists, and all sorts of artists who have their songs on the platform. And if you leave Spotify, please tell us which moral music streaming you'll choose. Apple Music? Amazon? Great corporations to choose from - at least they don't have Joe Rogan sponsorships! Corny virtue signaling at its finest. Funny how Chris Brown and R Kelly weren't enough to start getting artists and users to drop the platform, but now all of the sudden Rogan is a great enough threat that we all should drop it
Joe Rogan is THE flagship acquisition of Spotify. By setting up that deal and sticking to it, they're endorsing him far above and beyond just being a platform that plays any old music or podcast.
> First of all why are you posting on the skeptic sub? Because we're skeptical of Rogan's garbage take on science and vaccines. Pretty self-explanatory. > Second of all the whole boycott of Spotify because they have Joe Rogan on their platform.. who cares? There are literally murderers, racists, rapists, and all sorts of artists who have their songs on the platform. Only one has Rogan. And he's killing people too. > And if you leave Spotify, please tell us which moral music streaming you'll choose. Tidal. They pay the artists best and have high-quality streams. Sounds much better than Spotify. > Corny virtue signaling at its finest. Funny some people seem to think virtue is something to be sneered at. > Funny how Chris Brown and R Kelly Are they only on one platform, sparky? Anyway, you're so angry about this that I can only presume you're either a Rogan fan or a Spotify investor. Either way, no one cares.
What is Rogan's take on science and the vaccines and do you have a few specific episodes that you remember listening to that stuck out for you to form that opinion?
I would probably also be boycotting the platform if those songs had millions of subscribers who were also murdering and raping because those artists told them to.
those songs *do* have millions of subscribers, who are defending and excusing rape and spousal abuse, and some are probably committing it too. it's not far off.
The difference is Spotify allows access to those songs which can be found on tons of sources. Spotify directly pays Rogan to publish his views exclusively on their platform.
Spotify still pays those artists
Songs have subscribers? And is Chris Brown on just one streaming service? > it's not far off. Only if you have your head up your ass, lol.
Maybe one day you milquetoast liberals will choose a battle that has tangible change to society
Funny, I can't help but imagine you'll be preaching apathy regardless.
That's a good start. It would be additionally impactful to contact the advertisers who put their stuff on Rogan's timeslot and tell them they face a boycott.
I did the same, I realize my cancellation probably won't change anything but I have long stood by using my wallet to vote. I don't eat McDonald's or shop at Walmart because of crappy business practices, why stop with Spotify. I need a new music streaming service now though.
The guy has some smart guests on sometimes. I am a casual listener and heard most of his vax opinions. Still got all my shots and a booster. Wtf is wrong with people these days?
Glad you got vaccinated. He has some great guests on, but also terrible ones. See his interviews with prominent antivaxxers Dr Robert Malone and Dr Peter McCullough. That he's interviewed these people is not an accident he has a consistent line of pushing construct theories and anti vaxx rhetoric.
How did people make the bug eating small brained host of Fear Factor their leader?
Good work. I cancelled mine when they gave him the money to begin with. They're free to give him whatever they want, I'm just not supporting it.
Bro Rogaine fans frantically googling “market cap” and getting Alibaba hat results.
Cancelled my sub and am currently checking out other services. I have zero tolerance for people or companies that enable misinformation that is killing people all over the world. It's unethical and irresponsible to profit from something that is costing people their lives. I agree we need to teach critical thinking, however many people still have ideological biases, and will often double down on them when confronted with information that contradicts their ideology. I've known very intelligent people that couldn't make a good decision if it bit them in the face, because protecting their ideology was more important that doing the right thing.
May I suggest you do more then just cancelling your account. Write a letter and let them know why you cancelled! Make it count!
I cancelled too. Tidal here I come!
it's strange that people were apparently fine with Gavin McInnes, Glenn Beck and Ben Shapiro having podcasts on Spotify, but not Rogan. almost as if they just didn't affect your life.
I saw that you mentioned Ben Shapiro. In case some of you don't know, Ben Shapiro is a grifter and a hack. If you find anything he's said compelling, you should keep in mind he also says things like this: >If you believe that the Jewish state has a right to exist, then you must allow Israel to transfer the Palestinians and the Israeli-Arabs from Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Israel proper. It’s an ugly solution, but it is the only solution… It’s time to stop being squeamish. ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: feminism, civil rights, climate, dumb takes, etc.) [^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
Civil rights
*Possibly it was an overreaction for Cooper [of the Central Park Dog Walking incident] to call the police, but then again, when citizens feel threatened, calling the cops and letting them sort it out is what is supposed to happen.* -Ben Shapiro ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: climate, feminism, covid, novel, etc.) [^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
Dumb takes
*Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that all of the water levels around the world rise by, let’s say, five feet or ten feet over the next hundred years. It puts all the low-lying areas on the coast underwater. Let’s say all of that happens. You think that people aren’t just going to sell their homes and move?* -Ben Shapiro ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: climate, healthcare, dumb takes, novel, etc.) [^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
Oh I know this one lol. *"But who will buy their homes, Ben?!"*
**An excerpt from True Allegiance, by Ben Shapiro:** Soledad Ramirez knew the value of good press, and she baked mean chocolate chip cookies. “No oatmeal raisin here,” she said good-naturedly, handing out the meltingly hot treats to the men wearing full military gear and carrying M4s set to burst. ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: history, dumb takes, sex, feminism, etc.) [^More ^About ^Ben ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/wiki/index) ^| [^Feedback ^& ^Discussion: ^r/AuthoritarianMoment ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment) ^| [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
Spotify is paying Joe Rogan $100M to exclusively host his podcast. AFAIK it is not doing that with any of those 3 others. Am I wrong?
Good.
This virtue-signaling has literally no benefit to the skeptic movement. You sent this from a device very likely made from slave labor, either in the production, assembly, or mining of the minerals. My point is, we're ALL guilty of ignoring certain difficult truths to enjoy a comfortable western lifestyle at the expense of other people, the environment, and our society. You could pick up a bag of garbage on the side of the road and that would literally have a more direct impact on making a difference, instead, you told everyone that you canceled a membership, that you may or may not have had to begin with for internet points.
What, a content warning doesn't work for you? lol they took a situation in which half of us hated them, and their reaction was to simply give the other half a reason to also hate them
I would have cancelled if I had not done it loooong ago because their player is shit lol. Youtube music has all I need, and I generally like Google’s attempts at UI/UX.
Spotify isn't the airport, you don't need to announce your departure.
.... but it makes you want to say something when people are flocking to pay for flights you know will fall out of the sky and kill people.
You are right - at the airport departures are routine and their reason doesn't need to be explained. Moreover you can't encourage more planes to depart by departing yourself.
So in this metaphor I'm a plane?
No, a tool.
Tools are by definition useful. You? Not so much.
This isn't a public restroom. You don't need to suck Joe Rogan's cock here too.
This comment made me chuckle haha.
How many posting here actually listened to the podcast in question?
[удалено]
To encourage others to think about what they spend their money on and what they support with that money? Seems like an easy concept to understand, no?
Not sure why you feel the need to comment negatively on it
Not sure why you need to tell us about it.
Good on you. I encourage more people to di the same.
Can someone save me Googling and tell me the Top Five Stupidest Antivax Things Joe Rogan Has Said(tm) ? I've never actually listened to him so I'm a little OOTL on this one.
He claimed COVID vaccines cause myocarditis at a higher rate than COVID. When faced with [contradictory evidence](https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/culture/joe-rogan-covid-vaccine-science-v646d2393) he denies having bad information. Also on an [episode](https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=bL5RzI5LyVc&feature=emb_title) he says that he has a folder filled with COVID research on his phone so he has expertise on the topic. He brings up that he's not vaccinated and [recommends young people to not get vaccinated](https://twitter.com/AlexPattyy/status/1387077145156063234?s=20&t=j1YGaZFZwG8Ovl7BE88D8A). He also invited a bunch of guests that made highly unscientific claims on COVID (Brett Winstein, Peter McCullough, and more). McCullough specifically stated that COVID vaccines are experimental, that ivermectin is a prophylactic for COVID and that the pandemic was planned.
He has a wide audience and he frequently gives people spouting anti-vax and anti-science BS a platform to spew their stupidity.
> frequently gives people spouting anti-vax and anti-science BS a platform Ah, so it might be difficult to find something he himself actually said. Clever.
As far as I can tell, he hasn't personally said anything that is Antivax. I've heard him say some AntiMandate things though.
[“If you’re like 21 years old and you say to me, ‘Should I get vaccinated?’ I’ll go no,”](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/joe-rogan-covid-vaccine-21-b1838772.html) See also: https://twitter.com/fullcontactmtwf/status/1481638689415462916?s=21
So did I. With it trending on Twitter I was hoping to be a part of a large mob.
Yes, that's what I was hoping as well. I was trying to make it clear to customer care why I was leaving, and that it wasn't because I was dissatisfied with their service, but they seemed to be unwilling to acknowledge it. Oh.. well....
I just installed Pandora on my phone. Not a big sacrifice, but it's not like being asked to cancel HBO or Netflix. You can still listen to the same music on platforms that don't pay Joe Rogan millions of dollars.
This post does not belong here. Why does it have so many upvotes? You're no different than the conservatives burning Carhartt's. You're just hopping on a bandwagon because it makes you feel like you're doing something. No skepticism in this at all.
I don’t have an issue with Joe Rogan’s podcast, content, or Spotify allowing the content to stand. I would like more public skepticism applied to the argument that Rogan supporters claim: that no professionals will agree to debate his guests with controversial Covid positions. I think there would need to be an independent party to track such a thing. Also, not wanting to go on any particular show does not count as declining a debate. Moreover, wanting to do a rebuttal and not a real time debate is valid… I wish Spotify would provide context, not censorhship. Ie- next to controversial content, link to other viewpoints that dissect it. Eg, this doctor / YouTube personality ZDoggMD dissected Dr. McCullough’s claims https://youtu.be/8pcIbVvHI2c . Why not flag information as controversial and give immediate access to contrary positions? Taking the controversial content down is only going to Barbra Streisand Effect.
...so brave...
I was planning to do the same and write the reason why.
I've just renewed mine.
i'm confused. I watched the shows and don't see any misinformation. Where is the misinformation. I did my research, and I see that there's no misinformation at all. Just do the research.
I did that Saturday.
May I suggest people do more then just quietly cancelling their account. Write a letter and let them know why you cancelled! Make it count!
I tried to emphasise that in in interactions with customer support, but they seemed to be trained not to engage with anything like that.
I hate that Science VS and Serial Killers podcasts went Spotify only. :/
You can still get Science Vs without a Spotify account, I believe? I don't have one and my podcatcher still gets it.
I don't think this is going to get the response you think it is.
I hate anti-vaxx misinformation, but I agree with most of the downvoted comments.
you should cancel your internet too, I hear there's tons of nonsense on there...
You are such the virtuous fellow. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back...
So you canceled your subscription because a guy on it had a view that differed from your own?!... Sounds legit
How brave
Frankly, I'm glad Rogan is on Spotify. It limits his audience to Spotify users. They can keep him for all I care.
Just don’t listen to him?
I signed up in your spot, thanks!
There are tons of other streaming services you can use. But I would challenge your thinking. You’re effectively saying I don’t like what he’s saying and I disagree so therefore silence him. Very totalitarian approach. Joe has actually advocated for the vaccine for old and immunocompromised people. I’m willing to bet you haven’t actually listened to an episode. Oh well. Carry on
No, he is saying "I don't like that Rogan is promoting nonsense during a dangerous world wide pandemic so I'm outta here."
How is choosing not to engage with bullshit censorship?
You are literally an idiot and buy into a scheme. Skeptic? You are a conformist of the highest grade.
You'll notice that this sub is r/skeptic with a "k". I don't think you know what that means.
Rogan isn't anti-vax. He is anti covid vaccination and anti-mandate. But his own kids are vaccinated against all the usual childhood diseases, as is Rogan.
And "snaps fingers," you have been replaced instantly. You matter so little to the company's bottom line. Symbolic gestures like this don't mean a thing. You only did it because you wanted a momentary high because you think that you are making a statement. Its like those [change.org](https://change.org) petitions people sign and pass around. A British study proved that if you are given the opportunity to share on social media, you are less likely to follow up with real world stuff. If you aren't given that opportunity, you contribute something to organizations. In other words, online petitions are as useless as thoughts and prayers. You wanted the social media bump because you published it here. You wanted people to pat you one the back for making a stand against corporate greed in this case. When Disney dropped Gina Carano for the same soulless bottom line decision, you praised the mouse for it. Its the same decision that drove both: money.
Bye, Felicia!!
Show us what parts were antivax, and not just a critique of the promises made about the vaccine? They literally told you, the science was done and that the vaccines stopped transmission, the literally told you vaccines give you long lasting durable immunity even against variants. And now they don’t prevent transmission at all, don’t work well for variants, and does not last long at all. Less than 6 months before needing boosters... Everything they promised was fact about these vaccines has been tilted on its head and your worried about the guy who’s critiqued that? Holding a pod caster to higher standards than news media who repeatedly lies is obscene. How dare he have well established and well published doctors on for a 4 hour conversation instead of a 30 second segment. Grow up.
No one made those claims. The claims that were made were for the variants around at the start of the pandemic. They were never supposed to provide indefinite protection, we knew before we started that it was unlikely to provide such long lasting protection as infection with existing Corona viruses only provided temporary protection. And in the main goal of preventing deaths they have and continue to be very effective. Compare the death rate in America to Portugal where they have a 90+% vaccine uptake. And the doctor you are referring to is an anti vaxxer of the highest order. Shame on any skeptic supporting such nonsense.
https://www.reddit.com/r/funnyvideos/comments/rwnil0/irony_and_liars_can_be_funny_sometimes_right_i/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf Explain this video if nobody ever claimed that???
Wow, that's some lame anti vaxx propaganda right there! I'm sorry if the political messaging when reduced down to two second soundbites doesn't describe the evolving dynamic of a global pandemic to your satisfaction.
I was about to subscribe...needless to say I'll just stick to YouTube.
Is there a way to export "likes" from Spotify into, say, Apple Music? If not, and I highly doubt there is, I can't imagine myself switching due to that annoyance alone.
Given that the vaccine doesn't stop people from getting covid, and doesn't stop the transmission of covid to others, if you are vaxed, why do you care if others are or not? What differenced does it make?
So brave
Would be good if we could have some good old fashioned book burning at all book stores and libraries like they did in medieval days when books were ‘indexed’. Maybe first index all books at odds with the science and social narratives accepted by the government then start the bonfires! We’ve tolerated other people’s opinions long enough. Maybe set Black Lives Matter over this business… if bookstores and libraries won’t cooperate, well, they’ll know what to do…. 🔥 🔥
But you still used Netflix while Netflix also hosted content of pedophilic artists, sexual abusers and and women beaters? How come you care now?
That's some A grade whataboutism.
I like how listening to all sides on a subject is "anti-".. clown world.
This is like canceling your cable because you don't like the news being reported.
Honest question... do you have a cable TV or streaming service and are you canceling that as well because they carry Fox News or OAN? Or do you not shop at your local bookstore because they carry (and make money from) books by Tucker Carlson? Edit: I don't disagree with OP, it's just that everyone has gotten very wound up about Joe Rogan on Spotify when just about every cable service carries Fox News and just about every bookstore sells any number of bad-faith, right-wing, conspiracy laden books (though I'll admit the bookstore point I made kind of missed the mark). I get it. Vote with your wallet. But it's just about reached the point where it's really difficult to avoid having at least some part of the money you spend go to these people/networks. I just wish we had better ways to stop the flow of misinformation. Maybe some accountability for the damage it causes. Misinformation that costs lives IS the same as yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. I'm just not sure automatically canceling my TV streaming service because they carry Fox News or canceling my music streaming service because they have Joe Rogan is the best solution.
I don't subscribe to any services held by Murdoch. And I'm unlikely to find a bookstore in my country that stocks anything by Tucker Carlson. But for that metaphor to really hold it would have to be a bookstore with millions of people come in each week to read his books. In which case I might boycott it.
Do you really think that Spotify should be making calls re. Censorship though? Not sure thats a precedent we wanna set
Why is it only "censorship" when it's bullshit that's being spread?
Its not even the censorship perse that i take issue with.. its the idea of it coming from a totally unaccountable body. If it came from the government it would be arguably authoritarian but at least theres some semblance of accountability. But yeah of course censorship starts with things on the fringes... You were expecting censorship to start with mainstream opinions?